Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <596547 AT ican.net>]

Lee,

You wrote,
----------
> From: Lee R. Martin <lmartin AT vol.com>
> To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Subject: Re: Exodus 34:27-35 One event?
> Date: Monday, November 09, 1998 10:18 AM

> Another interesting question, however, is the interpretation of the
yiqtol following
> 'aSheR in v.34.  I believe you did a study of these yiqtol and 'aSheR. 
How do you
> explain this one.  Didn't you deduce the rule that it should be future? 
It looks past
> habitual to me.
> 
> Lee R. Martin

My rule is that yiqtol in a dependent clause should be *relative* non-past;
that is, non-past relative to the
main clause to which the dependent clause is attached. First, it is
necessary to distinguish between non-past and future.  Non-past is more
inclusive than future.  Second, I distinguish between *relative* time and
the speaker's time, sometimes referred to as "absolute time."  The
distinction allows for a *relative* non-past that is in the *speaker's*
past.  I think the )a$er yiqtol in Exo 34:34 is a hard read because the
verb is in the pual stem.  Yes, as an act, YHWH's commanding Moses precedes
Moses' speaking to Israel, but the pual stem allows for a relative non-past
reading.  The meaning is that whenever Moses was a speaker to the children
of Israel he was himself(present relative to the commanding) in a commanded
state.

Honestly, all this confusing talk is not so much help us inderstand the
verse, which is really no problem(you are right, it's habitual in the
absolute past).  It is only for the sake of defending a helpful rule, that
yiqtol in a dependent clause is relative non-past. Exo 34:34 is not a
counter-example after all, I don't think.

Shalom,
Bryan

B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13208

315-437-6744(w)
315-479-8267(h)